JPI MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update an existing job' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 8 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances needed for safe invocation. The high schema coverage helps, but for a mutation tool, more context is warranted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Job GUID', 'New job name', enums for status/strategy). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an existing job' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (job), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling update tools like jpi_update_component or jpi_update_task. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools including other update operations (e.g., jpi_update_jobs_batch for batch updates, jpi_update_component for components), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or trade-offs. Usage is implied but not articulated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.